94
In Cycle 1, most of the students were still unwilling to raise their hands if they were asked to answer questions. However, during this activity, the students
were more active to participate in the quiz as shown in the following vignette.
V07 Based on the vignette above, it can be said that the action was successful because
the students were more active and more confidence to share their thoughts. 6 Initiating group work activity to enhance classroom interaction among the
students In cycle 1, the students’ were involved in peer work activity and they
could share ideas with their partner. In Cycle 2, there were activities which involved group work activity. The students were actively involved during group
work activity such as discussing about the social function, the generic structure, and the language features of the descriptive text. With those activities, the
interactions among the students were getting better than before. Based on the reflection above, all the actions implemented during Cycle
2 was successful in improving both the students’ writing skill and the teaching
and learning of writing.
There were two students who raised their hands and they were ready to be asked by the researcher.
Their names were Dimas and Sekar. The researcher gave a question for each student.
95
C. General Findings
This part presents the general findings gained in Cycle I and Cycle II during the research. They consist of qualitative and quantitative data. The qualitative data are
presented by describing the progression of the implementation of the Quantum Learning Strategy in the teaching and learning process of writing. T
he progression during Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 was elaborated in this following table.
Table 8.
The Students’ Changes during the Teaching and Learning Process of Writing in Cycle 1 and Cycle 2
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
1. The activities in “Enroll” stage in which the students stuck motivational
posters on the wall in the classroom gave new atmosphere to the students.
Some of them like the new atmosphere but the others are not comfortable with
the situation in the classroom. 1. The students were more relax in
“Enroll” activities that were conducted by playing instrumental music while
the researcher
explaining the
materials. When the music was played while the students were writing, some
of them said that it was useful and helped them get inspiration but a few
of the students said that it did not give any influence to them.
2. The students made progress in term of vocabulary mastery in “Experience”
stage in which the students with the researcher did brainstorming activity
together. Moreover, many students actively gave their ideas of what they
could write to describe a public figure. 2. In “Experience” activities in Cycle
2, the students gave more ideas by sharing about placeplaces that they
had ever visited.
3. In “Learn and label” activities in which the students did some pre-
writing activities, they made progress in the vocabulary mastery, generic
structure and language features of descriptive texts. However, there were
still many of them cheated their frien
ds’ work. 3. The students’ found it easier to do
the activities and tasks. When the students were asked to review what
they have learned in “Review” activities, they could answer the
questions easily.
96
4. Most of the students were able to write a descriptive text but many of
them still depended on the example 4. The students were freer to develop
their ideas and they were also active to consult their dictionary during writing
and sometimes asked the researcher about the meaning of some words that
they were not sure about.
5. The students started to be more active to consult with their dictionary
if they found difficult words. Their vocabulary mastery increased
5. The students participated actively during the brainstorming activity to
give their ideas.
6. The students’ enthusiasm towards the teaching and learning improved
especially when they were taught using LCD and with the new
atmosphere. However, there were still some
students who
were not
enthusiastic. Instead, they made noise during the teaching and learning
process. 6. The students were more enthusiastic
and more engaged in the lesson after the researcher played instrumental
music
7. Some of the students got a few difficulties in expressing their ideas
while they had to do their task in the classroom. They said that they found
it difficult to get inspirations. 7. It was considered when the students
were given a freedom to choose wherever they want to do their task. It
was effective because some students said that they were more comfortable
to write outside the classroom and they could get more inspiration.
8. The peer work activity was not quite effective because not all students
participate actively
during the
discussion. The students still shy and not confidence
8. The students were actively involved during group work activity. With those
activities, the interactions among the students were getting better than before
and their confidence increased
9. While doing the task, there were some students still cheated their
friends’ work 9. The students had did their task by
themselves. They got freedom to do the task as they want
10. The classroom interaction both the interaction between the researcher
10. The classroom interaction both the interaction between the researcher and
97
and the students and among the students improved through discussion
and presentation. the students and among the students
improved through discussion and presentation.
The quantitative data also supported the findings. To obtain the data, a pre-test and a post test were conducted. The post-test in this study was the last writing that the
students did in Cycle 2. The students’ writing were assessed by using inter rater reliability. The scoring which was done by the researcher and the collaborator were
based on the scoring rubric of Jacobs et al. Therefore, the tables below will present the mean scores of each aspect gained from the pre-test, Cycle 1 and Cycle 2.
Table 9. The Mean Scores in the Aspect of Content
Rater Pre-Test
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Post-Test Researcher
20.31 22.34
22.63 Collaborator
21.88 23.38
23.91 Mean scores of the rater
21.10 22.86
23.27 The table above indicates that the students writing skills in the aspect of content
improved
. The mean scores were increased cycle by cycle. Overall, the gained score from pre-test and pos-test obtained was 2.17 that show significant progression.
Table 10. The Mean Scores in the Aspect of Organization
Rater Pre-Test
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Post-Test Researcher
12.06 14.41
14.22 Collaborator
13.66 15.38
15.34 Mean scores of the rater
12.86 14.90
14.78
Based on the table, there was also an improvement in the aspect of
98
organization. The scores of the students’ writing in the aspect of organization
increased in every cycle. Furthermore, the gained score obtained was 1.92.
Table11. The Mean Scores in the Aspect of Vocabulary
Rater Pre-Test
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Post-Test Researcher
12.75 14.72
15.41 Collaborator
14.06 15.75
16.63 Mean scores of the rater
13.41 15.24
16.02 From the table above, it can be seen that the students’ mastery of language
use also increased. Cycle by cycle, the students got better scores in the aspect of language use in their writing. The gained score gained was 2.61. It was a considerable
improvement.
Table 12. The Mean Scores in the Aspect of Language Use
Rater Pre-Test
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Researcher 12.94
15.72 16.31
Collaborator 14.34
17.02 17.25
Mean scores of the rater 13.64
16.37 16.78
The table above showed that there was also an improvement in the aspect of vocabulary. The scores improved in every cycle. The improvement in the aspect of
vocabulary is indicated by the gained mean score obtained which was 2.52.
Table 13. The Mean Scores in the Aspect of Mechanics
Rater Pre-Test
Cycle 1 Cycle 2
Researcher 3.50
3.41 3.69
Collaborator 3.60
3.72 3.81
Mean scores of the rater 3.55
3.57 3.75
